la boheme

[NotCranky]

DC.
Independent of the cost of the “dirt”, I must defend the housing stock — it’s simple but well-built, well-designed, and the last gentrification wave shows that it can be rebuilt to original specs at reasonable cost, leading to quite nice looking neighborhoods. Try that with 60’s dingbat apartments!

Actually I sort of agree. Remember I am also a contractor? I worked in the neighborhood a little and snooped out other peoples work and houses in general. I think it depends on the house and the contractor who did repairs and remodels. The houses were built in so many different eras and for widely different ranges of purchasing power for the respective times. In the $600k range you mention, and above, they should be pretty decent on both accounts. In the lower but still too high priced houses, like $350-$500k, it could really vary. Another side of the same coin is …how well does your house need to be built in an area of 75 degree mean temperatures almost year round?10 inches of average annual rainfall and very infrequent winds. The houses are light so they are pretty earthquake safe but certain foundation types are more vulnerable as are those nice antique fire places.
I also agree on the “cuteness” factor and the pukeness factor of the suburban type houses you mentioned.

[DCRogers]

Rustico,

In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…

If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?

[DCRogers]

Rustico,

In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…

If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?

[DCRogers]

Rustico,

In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…

If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?

[DCRogers]

Rustico,

In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…

If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?

[DCRogers]

Rustico,

In your opinion, is the housing stock in City Heights really much different from that of Normal Heights and North Park? Other than greater density and lack of upgrading (and perhaps more 2+1(+1+1…) development), it seems more similar than different to me…

If so, that leaves gentrification as the only difference. Fair or wrong?

[NotCranky]

I think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.

I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.

Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.

Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.

[NotCranky]

I think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.

I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.

Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.

Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.

[NotCranky]

I think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.

I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.

Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.

Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.

[NotCranky]

I think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.

I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.

Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.

Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.

[NotCranky]

I think more of the houses in City Height resemble the lesser quality houses in the other areas and there just are not very that are as good even as say an average to a little better in north park and Normal Height. The work and maintenance done over the years and even recently On City Heights homes Is on average lower even as compared to like houses in Normal Heights. That does not mean that some are not done well or that rescuing one should be out of the question. As far as nice well maintained or even more luxurious homes Normal Heights and North park win hands down.

I guess you might not be thinking Kensington. At the risk of alienating a few people who would grow ill to think of Kensington as part of the same neighborhood as Normal Heights, I do. In fact Kensington going south very quickly becomes like City Heights. I don’t remember what that little area in between is called but it is more like City Heights than Kensington. Stay closer to Adams and Kensington is like one of the the best parts of the Normal Heights/Kensington area. Go north of Adams to the rim of Mission Valley and Kensington is like a different world by comparison but that is the only place IMO.

Anyway even if you want to toss out Kensington the maintenance and improvements are on average better. There are many more nice houses on what you could almost call quiet streets. City Heights might have a few places like that. Cherokee point is similar to average places in the other two areas but it is right off University, which I consider a big negative.
I don’ think gentrification is the only difference, it is about percentages of varying qualities or houses. City heights is mostly lower but you do find City Heights type houses in 92116 and 92114 in large quantities too.

Are you wondering if you buy in City Heights if a next gentrification wave could make things equal. I doubt equal could be the result of that. I think more likely changes will be along the lines of “tear down and revitalization”. Like I said that could happen along El Cajon Blvd, anywhere on University too. Adams Ave. might not be imune to that but I don’t know of anything specific. As you probably know the proper function of eminent domain actions are in and out of the courts. I believe the planners will get what they want most of the time.

[patientlywaiting]

It seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.

Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.

People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.

[patientlywaiting]

It seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.

Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.

People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.

[patientlywaiting]

It seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.

Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.

People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.

[patientlywaiting]

It seems to me like the really old shacks need to sell for a substantially reduced price per square foot in order to compete with newer housing. That’s especially true given the fact that those old houses generally only have 1 outdated, functionally obsolete bathroom, not to mention bad electrical, plumbing, insulation.

Most of the remodeling cost is in the bathrooms and kitchen.

People who paid $500,000 for those shacks will be in for a rude awakening.

[Author]

Posts